Global Warming

[tim290280]

^^ So you are going to put off fixing anything until it is too late to fix because a problem that needs to be fixed is only important now??

 

[bambam55]

^interesting post

one of the main sources of global warming is the clearing of land. even if we do cut emmisions greatly in the next few years the earth will continue to warm because of the greenhouse gases still in the air. trees are our friends when it comes to this by cooling the earth by releasing oxygen, but we are destroying many forests at an alarming rate.

Most of the world's oxygen comes from the ocean.

I really agree with what Tech has said about fixing our immediate problems first and worrying about this later. Its time to bring the troops home and not just some small number to look good to the media. Our economy right now is crumbling and it should be our main focus. I think its really sad that right now our country needs a President that will stand out and be a true leader. Yet one plays the race card and the other plays the elder republican card.

I do feel that we do need to do something about this, but do we really know enough about global warming just yet to do something that will actually produce results?

 

[Tech]

^^ So you are going to put off fixing anything until it is too late to fix because a problem that needs to be fixed is only important now??

yes and no.

if we fix our foreign policy, many other things will fall into place.

the US government cannot multi-task. we have greedy assclowns running this country. if we want to solve anything, we need to make a giant checklist and just go through and work the problems one at a time. the more things the government tries to do, the more they fuck them up.

bringing our troops home should be number one on everyone's list. and if we can't even get that accomplished, how the hell are we supposed to solve something gigantic like global fuckin warming?


hell, if we stopped spending trillions on these middle-eastern wars, we could spend money on finding new cleaner energy sources. win/win, right?

 

[Duality]

^ i agree. priorities must take place in assesing what is a more imminent and deadly problem right now, and that problem is the way our government is run, namely our foreign policy. the deadliest and most unneccesary situation, our illegal occupation of iraq. though we should not wait until something becomes a problem before we turn out attentions to it, there are other issues that deserve our attention at this point in time.


i mean shit, i think we should start giving tax incentives to families to have 2 children or less because eventually, we are going to have MAJOR overpopulation problems (the whole world is). we must increase our WORLD food production by 50% in the next 20 years to meet demand. i think this is a huge problem. we shouldn't wait to find ourselves in china's situation before we start implementing solutions to population control. i think action should be taken now to insure we never find ourselves with a billion people population. this is a rant i know but still it's just putting in perspective the problems we face today that direly need our attention, and the problems we will face 10, 20, 50 years from now.

 

[lifterdead]

my point is, global warming should not be on the front page of newspapers. It is not a problem that will kill us anytime soon nor is it a problem that will collapse our country. The wars and runaway spending are both problems that will cripple the United States within the next 50 years. These are the problems that will have the most impact on our citizens.....not hot weather, rising oceans, and pollution.

For example, John McCain thinks global warming is the number one issue this election year. That makes me sick. The number once issue is our crumbling economy and these bullshit wars. If John McCain becomes president, he's can't do shit to help the global climate, but he sure as fuck can send me and my peers off to fight in more unnecessary wars. (ie Iran)

Put into those terms, I agree.



So far, I haven't heard a single intelligent answer (or question) about the economy. That's another thread I'd like to dive into.




BUT FOR THE RECORD this thread was to debate about the portrayal of global warming in the media and it's influence on the public. For example, you mentioned rising sea levels, something that I think people have little or no understanding of, yet assume it's going to be a problem.......

 

[tim290280]

^ i agree. priorities must take place in assesing what is a more imminent and deadly problem right now, and that problem is the way our government is run, namely our foreign policy. the deadliest and most unneccesary situation, our illegal occupation of iraq. though we should not wait until something becomes a problem before we turn out attentions to it, there are other issues that deserve our attention at this point in time.


i mean shit, i think we should start giving tax incentives to families to have 2 children or less because eventually, we are going to have MAJOR overpopulation problems (the whole world is). we must increase our WORLD food production by 50% in the next 20 years to meet demand. i think this is a huge problem. we shouldn't wait to find ourselves in china's situation before we start implementing solutions to population control. i think action should be taken now to insure we never find ourselves with a billion people population. this is a rant i know but still it's just putting in perspective the problems we face today that direly need our attention, and the problems we will face 10, 20, 50 years from now.

While I understand the "we have other priorities" statement I find it naive and short sighted. Every major economics report of the last 5yrs has stated that if we don't make changes to combat climate change now so that new industries are in place in the medium term we (Australia, USA, Europe who are already doing a lot of this stuff) are fucked economically.

As for overpopulation The major growth in the worlds population has come from China and India. Other asian nations and middle eastern nations are also outgrowing any first world nation because we are actually negative natural population growth (USA currently has a fertility rate of 2.1 which is neutral, Australia is 1.76 which is negative, UK has 1.66 which is negative). So population control is more a problem in developing countries and 2nd or 3rd world nations, and quite frankly they aren't going to implement any form of control in the short ot medium term (China is currently having some issues with its policy so it has been shoved on the back burner).

Increasing world food production isn't as much of a problem as people think. The main issue is doing it in a politically stable environment where trade is free (the USA has all sorts of subsidies and embargos that diminish the ability of other countries to produce food).

 

[Duality]

Originally posted by Tim290280
While I understand the "we have other priorities" statement I find it naive and short sighted. Every major economics report of the last 5yrs has stated that if we don't make changes to combat climate change now so that new industries are in place in the medium term we (Australia, USA, Europe who are already doing a lot of this stuff) are fucked economically.

i fully understand what you're saying. i just think that some things require immediate attention, and some things require attention. iraq and our foreign policy= immediate attention.

As for overpopulation The major growth in the worlds population has come from China and India. Other asian nations and middle eastern nations are also outgrowing any first world nation because we are actually negative natural population growth (USA currently has a fertility rate of 2.1 which is neutral, Australia is 1.76 which is negative, UK has 1.66 which is negative). So population control is more a problem in developing countries and 2nd or 3rd world nations, and quite frankly they aren't going to implement any form of control in the short ot medium term (China is currently having some issues with its policy so it has been shoved on the back burner).

Increasing world food production isn't as much of a problem as people think. The main issue is doing it in a politically stable environment where trade is free (the USA has all sorts of subsidies and embargos that diminish the ability of other countries to produce food).

i was aware that india and china are the main culprits of the problem. i did not know about the other nations though having a relatively neutral growth in terms of population as well as ourselves. i just see milestones such as our population hitting 300 million a couple years back, and worry about the future. when are we estimated to hit 350 million? 400 million? remember that population is also influenced by things such as illegal immigration. even though our growth is listed as somewhat neutral, we have around 10 million illegals in our country right now that are more or less unaccounted for (that number is an estimation for obvious reasons) that also influence our population and will continue to do so.

 

[Ironslave]

There's only so many things that people can concentrate on, priorities are needed. I just think the "climate change" stuff is as simple as put up a few posters/commercials, spread word of mouth, and use your common sense. Respect property, don't pollute, don't waste unnecessary energy, and promote how you can save money by doing so.

There's no way that "every major economic report" has agreed that climate change is a problem, definitely occuring, and even if it is, is it worthy of alarm? There are just as many out there on this side of the argument, as there are on the other side.

As for the population control, here's an argument I had with someone on the issue.

Him: Population is getting out of control! We're destroying the earth!!
Me: Hmm that sucks, so you think we should try and limit reproduction?
Him: Yes!! We need to do something before it's too late!
Me: Okay.... well tell you what, let's see if you're a hypocrite or not. How about you go out right now and get a vasectomy, I'll drive you and I'll even pay for it.
Him: ..............

 

[lifterdead]

I'll take you up on that vasectomy offer!

 

[tim290280]

i was aware that india and china are the main culprits of the problem. i did not know about the other nations though having a relatively neutral growth in terms of population as well as ourselves. i just see milestones such as our population hitting 300 million a couple years back, and worry about the future. when are we estimated to hit 350 million? 400 million? remember that population is also influenced by things such as illegal immigration. even though our growth is listed as somewhat neutral, we have around 10 million illegals in our country right now that are more or less unaccounted for (that number is an estimation for obvious reasons) that also influence our population and will continue to do so.

Yes most if not all of the growth in populations in developed nations is from poor countries and immigration. That can't be controlled by anything other than border control and immigration restrictions. Of course that is kinda draconian. Plus it does shift the growth away from poor nations and tend to lead to stability of world populations (in the long term) but this is a double edged sword as it forces down average affluence.

There's no way that "every major economic report" has agreed that climate change is a problem, definitely occuring, and even if it is, is it worthy of alarm? There are just as many out there on this side of the argument, as there are on the other side.

We have had two in Australia, there have been two in the UK, several in the USA, one international one (Stern Report)..... these are just off the top of my head. Plenty of financial newspapers and peridoicals have been calling for action for years to make sure business futures are clear. Let alone their concerns about these and other reports.

The only "climate change hockum" economics reports I have heard of have not been about climate change but rather the short term costs of industry change and new regulations. They see it as a problem that needs to be addressed by all nations and that we should be business as usual until all emmitters are on board. This has been shown in later reports to be of marginal value and missing business growth opportunities.

As to the as many on one side as the other of the climate change argument I completely disagree. There are very few on the disagree side in the informed populations. Even skeptic friends I have (one of whom has studied in the area) have no doubt that climate change is occurring, they are more of the "are we to blame" camp. The media and some governments have tried to instill this supposed argument in the wider public to delay their need for action. For every scientist that disagrees with climate change there are a hundred on the other side shaking their heads in disgust (Take a look at recent New Scientist reports, Science or Nature articles, etc).

 

[lifterdead]

As to the as many on one side as the other of the climate change argument I completely disagree. There are very few on the disagree side in the informed populations. Even skeptic friends I have (one of whom has studied in the area) have no doubt that climate change is occurring, they are more of the "are we to blame" camp.

I keep telling people I agree with them, but, well...

This is essentially my personal stance. Yes, the climate is changing, but why? And how much is due to us? How much is due to other influences, like solar flares, and so on?

 

[bambam55]

There's only so many things that people can concentrate on, priorities are needed. I just think the "climate change" stuff is as simple as put up a few posters/commercials, spread word of mouth, and use your common sense. Respect property, don't pollute, don't waste unnecessary energy, and promote how you can save money by doing so.

There's no way that "every major economic report" has agreed that climate change is a problem, definitely occuring, and even if it is, is it worthy of alarm? There are just as many out there on this side of the argument, as there are on the other side.

As for the population control, here's an argument I had with someone on the issue.

Him: Population is getting out of control! We're destroying the earth!!
Me: Hmm that sucks, so you think we should try and limit reproduction?
Him: Yes!! We need to do something before it's too late!
Me: Okay.... well tell you what, let's see if you're a hypocrite or not. How about you go out right now and get a vasectomy, I'll drive you and I'll even pay for it.
Him: ..............

lmao I would of loved to have seen that guys face

 

[Duality]

Originally posted by IronslaveHim: Population is getting out of control! We're destroying the earth!!
Me: Hmm that sucks, so you think we should try and limit reproduction?
Him: Yes!! We need to do something before it's too late!
Me: Okay.... well tell you what, let's see if you're a hypocrite or not. How about you go out right now and get a vasectomy, I'll drive you and I'll even pay for it.
Him: .............

there's a difference in reproducing 2 children to replace yourself and your spouse, and having 6 children because you think the more children you put into this world the better.

 

[Ironslave]

This is essentially my personal stance. Yes, the climate is changing, but why? And how much is due to us? How much is due to other influences, like solar flares, and so on?

Same here.

 

[Ironslave]

there's a difference in reproducing 2 children to replace yourself and your spouse, and having 6 children because you think the more children you put into this world the better.

Or maybe the family wants 6 children... because they just do? Either way, it's a violation of liberty to try and make laws or something telling people they can't reproduce.

 

[Duality]

Or maybe the family wants 6 children... because they just do? Either way, it's a violation of liberty to try and make laws or something telling people they can't reproduce.

this is the same exact arguement we had on the thread where japan put financial incentive for people to be in better shape. violation of liberty? sure, if you want to be black and white about it. same goes here, only this could become quite a problem if it gets out of hand. like i said before, when do you think our population here will hit 350 million? 400? 500? i say if you want to have your cake and eat it too and think your entitled to have 6 kids, fine, but you will be taxed accordingly. we can't have families of 2 spouses pumping out 6 kids. it's not right and it's selfish.

 

[Bulkboy]

this is the same exact arguement we had on the thread where japan put financial incentive for people to be in better shape. violation of liberty? sure, if you want to be black and white about it. same goes here, only this could become quite a problem if it gets out of hand. like i said before, when do you think our population here will hit 350 million? 400? 500? i say if you want to have your cake and eat it too and think your entitled to have 6 kids, fine, but you will be taxed accordingly. we can't have families of 2 spouses pumping out 6 kids. it's not right and it's selfish.

you got it right bro

im glad to see that there are others on this board that thinks in abit broader perspective than the principle of personal liberty. when something affects everyone else, then its no longer just a question of liberty to do what u want. society gotta step in sometimes, and when we know that in other parts of the world people are dying from starvation, its not acceptable to encourage people over here to have a shitload of kids. especially when it only leads to more of an excessive strain on the natural resources we are tapping this earth from.

 

[Ironslave]

this is the same exact arguement we had on the thread where japan put financial incentive for people to be in better shape. violation of liberty? sure, if you want to be black and white about it. same goes here, only this could become quite a problem if it gets out of hand. like i said before, when do you think our population here will hit 350 million? 400? 500? i say if you want to have your cake and eat it too and think your entitled to have 6 kids, fine, but you will be taxed accordingly. we can't have families of 2 spouses pumping out 6 kids. it's not right and it's selfish.

Where do you draw the line though? Do we limit the amount of food that a person can eat? The amount of money they can make in their jobs? Why should people be punished, or not allowed, if they want to have many children? Maybe they love the whole process of raising them, isn't that their right?

m glad to see that there are others on this board that thinks in abit broader perspective than the principle of personal liberty. when something affects everyone else, then its no longer just a question of liberty to do what u want. society gotta step in sometimes, when we know that in other parts of the world people are dying from starvation, its not acceptable to encourage people over here to have a shitload of kids. especially when it only leads to more of an excessive strain on the natural resources we are tapping this earth from.

And who decides this? How many of the world's problems can be attributed by the fact that governments have gotten large and out of control? Tons. Seriously, Bulkboy and Duality, if you guys actually think that population is getting out of control, go get a vasectomy. I don't mean this in a mean, or disrespectful way, I just mean that if you truly think this is a problem, then actually make an individual choice to do something about it. Take the initiative, lead, and do something, instead of whining and hoping your government does, and in turn they make decisions that affect the lives and choices of others but not your own.

It's always funny that people are all for imposing certain laws against others, but not when it applies to themselves. Do you guys fit this category?

 

[Duality]

Originally posted by Ironslave
Where do you draw the line though? Do we limit the amount of food that a person can eat? The amount of money they can make in their jobs? Why should people be punished, or not allowed, if they want to have many children? Maybe they love the whole process of raising them, isn't that their right?

the proverbial "line" you speak of is the hard part. where do you draw it? bulkboy said it perfectly "when that person's personal liberty starts infringing on the rights/lives of others" world population WILL be a problem in the next 50 years. something needs to be done about it.

Seriously, Bulkboy and Duality, if you guys actually think that population is getting out of control, go get a vasectomy. I don't mean this in a mean, or disrespectful way, I just mean that if you truly think this is a problem, then actually make an individual choice to do something about it. Take the initiative, lead, and do something, instead of whining and hoping your government does, and in turn they make decisions that affect the lives and choices of others but not your own.

you again miss my point and use an extereme example to poorly illustrate your point. NEVER did i say people could and should not reproduce. what i said was, people should reproduce to replace themselves and their spouse....that equals 2 children. the families that don't believe in birth control or think it's the more the merrier and have 5 kids are not only greedy but they are selfish. what would happen if everyone did that? telling us to get vasectomies is not only ridiculous but it completely misses our points.

and you can't make it illegal to have more than 2 children i understand that, but you can sure as heck provide some tax incentives to do so. if i'm not mistaken china is currently doing this because they let a little problem turn into a big one.

It's always funny that people are all for imposing certain laws against others, but not when it applies to themselves. Do you guys fit this category?

i fully intend on having only 2 children. so yes i do.

 

[Ironslave]

Oh give me a break. Once again, maybe they want 4-5 children? Should we set a limit "sorry, you can only have 2 kids". How about if the government feels that overpopulation is a major problem, and it decides that nobody is allowed to have children for the next x amount of years?

If you think over population is such a problem, do something YOURSELF, and don't reproduce. Seriously, take the initiative man, be a leader and do it. Imagine, if you and everyone else who feels that overpopulation is a problem all made a vow, and they all decided to do something, get vasectomies, or tubes litigated, then chances are you'd solve the problem for everyone.

I know the point you're trying to make, you think that overpopulation is a problem, and fair enough, you can certainly think that. But my point is, think about what must be done in order to achieve this. So, instead of whining, and hoping that government will solve problems by telling other people what they can or cannot do, do it yourself.

It's always the exact same things, people want their government to do all these things and tell all these people how to live, so long as it doesn't affect themselves.